Jesse Goes Space Beams

I'm on the train listening to Jesse Ventura lose the last of his mainstream 9/11 credibility on Alex Jones.

About a month ago, Richard Hoagland was a guest on Coast to Coast, and he was thrilled that he had sent Dr. Judy Woods book to the other cast member of Predator who's held office, Jesse Ventura. I was hoping Jesse would lose it somewhere in Mexician surf. Alas that's not the case. Today he came out for spacebeams.

Today on the Alex Jones show, Jesse came out in favor of Dr. Judy Woods "microwave" theory.
Alex doesn't exactly call him out, but you can feel Alex discomfort.

I'll post the video when I get home, or maybe someone can in the comments.

"always remember there's a simple thing. When metal is... is... when... when... when something is hot it will glow... but it doesn't have to [stutters] be hot to glow." then at 3:06, in the background at Jesse's end, a woman is heard saying: "not everything that glows [muffled]" ...which Jesse hears and repeats: "not everything that glows is hot."

Sounds like Wood to me. Even if it isn't, Ventura is having a line fed to him.

There clearly is a female voice coaching Ventura in the background. Reportedly, Jesse was in Mexico during the latest AJ interview, so the voice may simply have been his wife, who perhaps has been equally as duped as JV by the Wood book. While Jesse has been extremely helpful in recent years, hopefully a qualified someone can demonstrate to JV the implausibility of the Woods view.

There seems to be an extremely surprising but limited amount of support for the Wood book. Reportedly it is comprised of mostly photos. However, she came across as just a highly speculative layperson during her Coast to Coast interview while presenting no scientific evidence to support her claims. She has previously alleged that the gash in WTC 3 was the result of some "space beam", even though photographic evidence proves that the collapsing WTC 2 created the damage. As for the unusual burn damage to vehicles nearby the WTC, the millions of noted molten microspheres contained within the collapse dust might account for this, once it settled onto objects.

Wood's arguments almost seem to mock the scientific method and its difficult not to notice the parallels that Wood and her supporters to draw between herself and respected figures like Dr. Jones, with her "Journal of 9/11 Research" (in contrast to Dr. Jones' "Journal of 9/11 Studies) and her claims of being being forced out of a teaching position.

this and when I said Manchurian candidate, I was thinking primarily about the influence of Judy's book on him, and how Jesse sounded like a rambling drone under hypnosis. This isn't what I actually think, but it describes how I feel about the situation. Jesse sounds confused and out there, appears to be embracing the big tent and this apparent mental confusion reminds me of David Shayler and David Icke. Jesse appears to be in constant flux and in a malleable state of mind.

Jesse has great mainstream appeal, if he's not going to be the target of disinformation, then he's going to be the target of charlatans looking to use him for publicity. And then we haven't even discussed how culpable he, Jesse Ventura himself, should be for the false claims he's promoting, from errors in his research in his early appearances in the media to the blatant disinformation of Jesse Ventura's "conspiracy show", to these newest antics.

People like Judy Wood and CIT know that they should attempt to 'recruit' followers when they are in their most vulnerable and ignorant phase of a crisis of confidence with their government, with some possible alienation from critical peers. Dwain Deets comes to mind.

On a recent Coast to Coast AM broadcast, Wood claimed that some people who were partially clothed and jumping from the upper floors of the WTC towers, did so because they had wet their clothes to remain cool on the fire floors and much like a microwave oven heats objects containing water, so too were the clothes of WTC jumpers over-heated by exotic energy weapons to the point of being too painful to tolerate and thus they had to remove these wet clothes and/or jump from the buildings to escape the pain. It didn't matter to Wood that many people in fire zones will remove clothing and utilize it as a makeshift air filter to combat smoke inhalation.

One of Wood's greatest affects is on general audiences, who will hear these ridiculous claims and reflexively reject all alternatives to the official 9/11 story.

In the event that Ventura has simply been mislead by the work of Wood, hopefully Ventura can be advised of the potentially disasterous consequences of openly supporting Wood's work, not only for the "truth" cause but for his own future credibility. Anyone with the ability to communicate with Ventura should do so ASAP.

Episodes for the 3rd season of Gov. Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" program on "TrueTV" may already be under consideration or even filming. The inclusion of Wood's work in an episode would cause serious harm to the credibility of not only the "truth" cause but to his own.

It sounds like the following is a very good possibility. AJ would never have Judy Wood on his show. Judy Wood would love to get on his show to sell her book. AJ has JV on his show and JV has Wood with him feeding him lines and selling her book. If this is the case and AJ finds out, you probably wont be seeing JV on his show anymore. That was a good catch Gareth - a female who sounds like Wood is feeding JV lines.

There was a weapon used that day, Alex, but it's a weapon that's beyond anything I know about.

If it is "beyond anything" he knows about, then why is he talking about it? Seems like basic common sense to me...

I have yet to see any evidence to support some kind of DEW (Directed Energy Weapon) being used to bring the towers or WTC 7 down.

What is out there now regarding DEW use at the WTC is pathological science, below that of even NIST's lame attempts to explain the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, imo.

The use of nanothermite (and other chemical-based explosives) on such a large scale was unprecedented. Thus, the possible side effects of its use are also likely to be unprecedented and somewhat unpredictable. The chemical reaction of nanothermite is somewhat dependent upon its interaction with steel and/or iron. I am willing to hypothesize that small chips of burning nanothermite being blown around in violent hot winds may act in unusual ways with regard to things like common office paper and the metal exterior of vehicles. Experimentation would confirm or refute this pretty easily. Anyone got the number for the order desk at Lawrence Livermore National Labs? Perhaps I should just go knock on their door, it's not more than 75 minutes from where I am right now.

Unsurprisingly, some folks in the media are always way too fast to chase shiny bright things that seem to make sense(?) at first glance.

Of course, there is the possibility that other factors might be in play, as is always the case, I hasten to add.

If you do go to Livermore National Labs, I hope you have trustworthy people to assist you. I think that's where Manuel Garcia is, who 'Counterpunch' got to write a piece attempting to trash controlled demolition a few years back. To which Frank Legge issued a very effective response, as I recall* (which of course 'Counterpunch' didn't print).
(*Edit: Unless I was thinking of this piece, by Kevin Ryan: http://stj911.com/ryan/garcia.html)

'Time to row harder straight up the stream, brothers and sisters, there seems to be a growing cross-current as we continue to move upstream.

'The truth shall set us free, but we have to keep our paddles in the water.'

More nutty things are going to happen. Along with Jessie pushing space beams (surprising, but not really considering he's featured Fetzer on his shows), and Alex saying WTC1&2 were demolished by mini nukes (no excuse), other people will likely take a shit on basic science. The reasons behind this are not as important as what we can do to counter it.

Lets stick to the scientific method. If someone has a theory, then they should be able to DO EXPERIMENTS and produce results for peer review and replication. The theory should not be easilydebunked.

So sad to hear Jesse and Alex arguing over whether it was a space-beam that brought the Towers down, or a mini-nuke! Both "theories" are demolished scientifically in the Journalof911Studies.com . I just wonder if people care about facts and the scientific method. They seem to care more about entertainment, what is catchy and shocking.

I have written a blog to respond to several questions regarding thermitic materials... science... hope it will help. Will post right away.

1. Those who maintain the official story that two planes + fires brought down three skyscrapers, only Al Qaeda was involved, no foreknowledge, etc. Debunkers. No experiments.

2. Those who use the scientific method to filter out facts, including the free-fall acceleration of WTC 7 (which was NOT dustified, incidentally) and the molten material flowing out of the So. Tower before its collapse, and the observed red thermitic material with sub-100-nm iron oxide grains and aluminum in 40-nm thick sheets. Scientific studies, peer-reviewed publications, experiments, experiments, experiments.
AE911Truth, 911Blogger, and others.

3. Those who go with wild theories such as no-planes-hit-the-Towers and space-beam knocked the Towers and WTC7 down (both promoted by Fetzer/Wood) OR mini-nuke destroyed the Towers. Destruction starts at the top, since the energy-beam is from space -- totally ignoring facts and publications to the contrary. No experiments. But entertaining. They fight against the science group, too.

On Coast-to-coast radio, Judy Wood said that WTC 7 was "dustified" -- what a load of bull manure, flying totally in the face of facts that the rubble piled rather neatly on the WTC 7 footprint -- Observed! She also argued that the falling buildings could have produced the observed thermitic material, from iron-dustified- turns to rust on the way down, combining with aluminum from the building. Unbelievable crap.

it is annoying that the 'type 3' people continue to pop up, and even manage to get a lot of attention. Some of them seem foolish and want attention, but a significant number of them must be put there to discredit us.

I remember the early days, when little was known about 911 and there was then a lot of wild speculation. But with the formidable pile of real evidence that now exists, it is outrageous, irresponsible, and harmful to claim 'space beams'.

It is also a reminder that, for the real evil-doers, 911 Truth is a frightening thing. They will pull almost any kind of stunt to discredit it.

"The official story regarding 9/11 is false. This conclusion is not mere conjecture as it is supported by ample hard evidence and peer-reviewed publications, which Dr. Steven Jones will review briefly. As the planet is experiencing more and more large-scale "tectonic" events, especially of late with devastation to both Haiti and Japan, he will also ask the audience to consider clear evidence for the existence and testing of earthquake-inducing devices. "

Earthquake inducing devices Prof. Jones? Sounds like a wild unsupported theory to me that will certainly do a good job of making us sound and look crazy.

The evidence supporting the existence of Earthquake inducing devices is considerable and growing, along with statements by Sec'y of Defense Cohen (and Z. Brzezinski) of their existence.

You would do well to attend my talk, or get a copy of the DVD of it. After you have seen the hard evidence presented, you may wish to withdraw your statement that this view is "unsupported."

However -- I hasten to add that this is not something that I can do direct experiments on. This is not on a par, in this sense, with my 9/11 research. I have to wait for the grid-patterns and cluster-patterns to appear where there are no known earthquake faults, and gather and analyze the data. This I have done.

Are there any reliable sources or peer reviewed papers in reputable journals that support the existence of an earthquake inducing device on the scale you propose? Apart from a Russian device that can't operate on such a scale, I haven't seen anything that merits attention.

but again, until you look at the data, you may wish to withhold judgment. I'm not talking about unsubstantiated speculation here. Critical thinking is welcomed; uninformed rejection is not, and is what we fight against.

In the same talk, I will address progress towards alternative energy. There is an unfolding drama in this arena. Here a letter from an inventor explaining how his device was taken from him, how he was visited at his home yesterday and threatened:

This last week was a nightmare for me, you have no idea under what pressure I have been and how many people contacted me, warnings that I should keep quiet... and in the end, yesterday, I had a personal visit after leaving my day to day job.

I had the impression that I live in a free country but it was demonstrated that anything is possible, we will never move forward.

I am an IT guy and I thought that I have a good brain but now after that I even forgot simple passwords and things I use every day, this is how scared I am.

I have a family, kids and they are most important for me. I had a lot of problems home with my wife because this too, she never wanted me to publish any of my work, but I did, and it looks that I should have listen to her. Well, now I learned my lesson.

I have never asked anyone for money or invited them to do a copy of the device I built, I have only showed my results, no intention to harm anyone in any way.

All I want now is to enjoy the life I had before and forget about doing any more research, I don’t have the power to do that anymore.

I am not good for this kind of pressure, I already have heart problems, it is not worth it.

I just hope that one day someone better than me will have the strength to go thru all this.

I have always stated that I have no intention to sell or do any public demonstrations, please check my posts on overunity forum.

In this case, the claims are being checked by direct experiments -- and the replications cannot be stopped I think... although individuals can clearly be stopped, their devices taken, along with threats and intimidation into silence.

Let us hope we can still talk about our discoveries and show the evidence as time goes on.

"This is the end I hope, I don’t want be contacted by any other people, I have no more info to share. All I had I posted free and it is better to be considered as not working."

Best Regards,

RomeroUK

Have you ever heard of Jan Sloot? He was a mountebank, who conned multiple investors and venture capitalists, such as Roel Pieper into investing in his hoax technology. I've read the book about this case, called "The Source Code". Philips knew the man's claims were false, and so do I, because it's a simple matter of knowing your trade. As a curiosity, I'll mention he died on 1999-7-11, while Mr. Spronck in the previous link cites Twenty University claiming the date of death was 1999-9-11 (Twenty University is most probably wrong).

The real tragedy here is that people like Jan Sloot always behave like RomeroUK does in his story you cited above. I don't see any mention of earthquake inducing technology in that thread either. I have no way of knowing RomeroUK's story isn't fraudulent, to cover up for his inability to produce anything in response to follow-up requests. You say there's more to it than that, but regrettably your reply has only enhanced my skepticism. Maybe I'll read more from the thread, but later. I have great interest in alternative energy, but I think we can achieve the most important part of this undertaking through solar and wind energy. This is why I mentioned Hermann Scheer in your other thread, about alternative energy. His vision was achievable, and was met with positive response, but he never lived to see it happen on the scale he imagined. (I'm aware of your solar cooker project, I found it to be charming, smart and useful to society)

I have no say over your and Richard's visit to Conspiracy Con, nor do I wish to, but given the line-up, I feel uncomfortable. I will keep supporting the nanothermite paper, because it hasn't been debunked. But I over the years I've happily overlooked plenty of controversies you yourself generated, and I would appreciate it if you would keep the gigantic importance of your research in mind and how perception of that research is shaped by how well you maintain your reputation. I also realize how much abuse, career meddling, insults and threats you've had to endure, and I wish this ongoing witch hunt upon no man. Most of us have seen the face of the man who threatened you, this is in a different league from "RomeroUK". Your plight is tangible, corroborated and verifiable, and you have produced real results. My sincere request to you: if you can, please don't help your antagonists along by supplying them with attack vectors.

First of all I do not have that device anymore, probably is destroyed, I have no idea and I don’t care anymore.

I have spent years in trying to do different things, replicating all sort of devices and spent lots of money for that.

This last week was a nightmare for me, you have no idea under what pressure I have been and how many people contacted me, warnings that I should keep quiet, people saying they run multimillion companies and want be to build for Africa,… and in the end, yesterday, I had a personal visit after leaving my day to day job.

I had the impression that I live in a free country but it was demonstrated that anything is possible, we will never move forward.

I am an IT guy and I thought that I have a good brain but now after that I even forgot simple passwords and things I use every day, this is how scared I am.

I have a family, kids and they are most important for me. I had a lot of problems home with my wife because this too, she never wanted me to publish any of my work, but I did, and it looks that I should have listen to her. Well, now I learned my lesson.

I have never asked anyone for money or invited them to do a copy of the device I built, I have only showed my results, no intention to harm anyone in any way.

All I want now is to enjoy the life I had before and forget about doing any more research, I don’t have the power to do that anymore.

I am not good for this kind of pressure, I already have heart problems, it is not worth it.

I just hope that one day someone better than me will have the strength to go thru all this.

I have always stated that I have no intention to sell or do any public demonstrations, please check my posts on overunity forum.

This is the end I hope, I don’t want be contacted by any other people, I have no more info to share. All I had I posted free and it is better to be considered as not working.

Best Regards,

RomeroUK

Note that he is "scared", as he said, apparently extremely so. Thus, when he says "All I had I posted free and it is better to be considered as not working" -- he is not saying it does not work, but is evidently doing some CYA. In any case, as you read the thread, you will see that those doing replications will give the answer as to whether it works or not -- but in an unusual manner (which manner I will allow the reader to go to the thread and learn for her/himself.)

I don't so much see it as people fighting 'against energy truth,' so much as they've become what you might call 'gun shy' when it comes to taking up certain topics unless they can be guaranteed that it won't have the effect of 'backfiring' on the 9/11 truth movement.

But I've been at this since 2004, and when I saw you emerge in the movement I quickly became a close follower of your work; I do believe your core belief system revolves around the sanctity of scientific experiment, which you say trumps arguments from authority. I'd say this statement reflects the thinking of a skeptical mind, and a scientist hard to fool.

Myself, I've been focusing on the tool of choice of our "enemy" at JREF, so to speak: skeptic philosophy. I know how to arm and defend this movement against them and their ilk, and I have developed my own "precautionary principles" to deal with them.

This is my perspective, but I have confidence that you won't be bamboozled by pseudoscience. Were you to say at "Conspiracy Con" that any of the recent earthquakes were the product of modern day American weaponry, then I'd either have to see some incredibly strong evidence justifying such claims or I would have to dismiss them. The PR consequences for 9/11 Truth around the blogosphere would be predictably disastrous and we would suffer a credibility hit alongside you. These are my concerns. Please do not take them personal; I appreciate your work. (But, ultimately I follow the truth and not leaders, not even people I consider inspirational mentors)

An overunity.com forum member going by the handle "romerouk" claims to have produced a self sustaining "Muller Dynamo." He has posted instructions, specifications, pictures, and videos of the device. Then yesterday, after receiving an unsettling visit, he announced it was all a, "big fake."

by Hank Mills with Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News

Hope is precious and invaluable. It is the hope for a cleaner environment, a revitalized global economy, a more peaceful planet, and an all around better world that motivates many researchers in the exotic energy arena to continue pressing forward. When hope for a certain exotic energy technology is shattered due to fraudulent claims, the entire "free energy" community suffers a temporary emotional shock. A recent example of this, is the sensational claims and eventual admission of fraud, by an internet forum user going by the handle of "romerouk" on the overunity.com discussion forum.

Romerouk claimed on an Overunity.com thread that he had built a modified, but self sustaining Muller Dynamo. In dozens of posts, he described his system, listed the components used, shared construction guidelines, released pictures, and even posted videos to Youtube. The videos seem to show a system that was completely self sustaining, and powering a load in the form of a light bulb.

For those who are not aware, the Muller Dynamo is the invention of Canadian inventor Bill Muller who passed away in 2004. The device is both an electrical generator and an electric motor all in one. It utilized a rotor with embedded permanent magnets sandwiched between two platforms (one below and one above) which held multiple stators. The stators were composed of coils of wire wound around soft ferromagnetic materials (such as magnetite, soft ferrite, etc). In addition, the system would utilize one more permanent magnet than stator. This would tremendously reduce any "cogging" as the rotor turned, and create a situation in which no stable alignment of poles would be possible. The rotor could be turned by hand without feeling any significant resistance. By properly timing the pulses of the coils (which could function as drive coils or pickup coils) the device could operate without producing significant back EMF. The end result was a claimed gain of energy (mechanical or electrical). A more detailed description of the Muller Dynamo, and how it can function as a generator, motor, or both can be found on the Muller Power homepage.

Romero's device was very similar to the Muller Dynamo. All the details including drawings, schematics, and part numbers can be found on the overunity.com thread. In the thread, Romero answered many questions about the device as potential replicators rushed to obtain all the information they needed to build their own units. Forum members were "on the ball" so to speak, and immediately started the process of fabricating rotors, obtaining materials, and ordering parts. Then out of nowhere, disaster struck as Romero's Youtube account disappeared and his personal website went down. Then he posted the following message on May 10.

--

T H I S W A S A B I G F A K E, S T O P R E P L I C A T I N G
THIS IS MY LAST POST
World will be the same

SORRY!

--

This came as a shock, spurring speculation on the forum. Romero had seemed very sincere and open about his device. It was also a hard slap in the face to everyone who had been preparing to replicate the setup. Forum members had invested their time getting ready to replicate, sacrificed materials in order to fabricate rotors/stators, and even spent their hard earned money purchasing components. As Romero stated in one of his posts, the device was not cheap to build. He expected the cost of a slightly larger scale version of the device to cost around one thousand dollars.

It was obvious that Romero did not like being in the limelight. He repeatedly stated how he wanted other people to replicate so he could step away. He claimed no desire for financial gain, nor was he receiving payment of any kind.

Upon learning about this "hoax" post, Sterling Allan posted a question on the forum: "Question, could the perpetrator be criminally charged? Or would this be a civil matter? What would be the charge? Who would /could bring the charge?"

Shortly after that, he received an email from Romero, which Sterling posted to the forum as well, in which Romero claims to no longer have the device, says he was under tremendous pressure, had a visitor at his home, mentioned how he was experiencing memory lapses, and was having issues with his wife. Basically, he indicated that it was better off for everyone to think the device never worked. Here is an excerpt:

First of all I do not have that device anymore, probably is destroyed, I have no idea and I don’t care anymore.

I have spent years in trying to do different things, replicating all sort of devices and spent lots of money for that.

This last week was a nightmare for me, you have no idea under what pressure I have been and how many people contacted me, warnings that I should keep quiet, people saying they run multimillion companies and want be to build for Africa,… and in the end, yesterday, I had a personal visit after leaving my day to day job.

I had the impression that I live in a free country but it was demonstrated that anything is possible, we will never move forward.

I am an IT guy and I thought that I have a good brain but now after that I even forgot simple passwords and things I use every day, this is how scared I am.

I have a family, kids and they are most important for me. I had a lot of problems home with my wife because this too, she never wanted me to publish any of my work, but I did, and it looks that I should have listen to her. Well, now I learned my lesson.

I have never asked anyone for money or invited them to do a copy of the device I built, I have only showed my results, no intention to harm anyone in any way.

All I want now is to enjoy the life I had before and forget about doing any more research, I don’t have the power to do that anymore.

I am not good for this kind of pressure, I already have heart problems; it is not worth it.

I just hope that one day someone better than me will have the strength to go thru all this.

I have always stated that I have no intention to sell or do any public demonstrations, please check my posts on overunity forum.

This is the end I hope, I don’t want be contacted by any other people, I have no more info to share. All I had I posted free and it is better to be considered as not working.

Hoax or Distress?

Whether this device is actually a hoax or whether Romero, under duress, said it was, as a way to escape; the results are chaotic.

On one hand, if the device was a hoax or faked (not likely), he is guilty of producing false hope in the members of an entire online community; encouraging people to waste their time, materials, and money on replicating a setup that does not work. Even worse, this is likely to make forum members more cynical about the next *legitimate* claim of an overunity technology. He would not only be wasting people's resources in the present, but hindering future technological progress by inducing excessive skepticism in the minds of many.

On the other hand, if the device is legitimate, he has lied to a large group of people who were going out of their way to be supportive of his work, by saying it was a hoax. In addition, he has created confusion among members as to the worthiness of the technology for further testing. Individuals who would have attempted to replicate, may decide not to go forward. Furthermore, he has given the skeptics an easy target. From this point on, anyone who works on the device can be easily mocked by skeptics who are prone to say, "Why are you working on a device that was part of an admitted hoax?"

If the technology is legitimate, perhaps future replication attempts will reveal it to be so.

Overunity.com founder and moderator, Stefan Hartmann, who has uploaded copies of three (1 | 2 | 3) of the deleted videos to his overunitydotcom YouTube channel, wrote to us:

It is no fake nor any fraud.

He is just totally scared after having had a bad visit.

So he bailed out and deleted his websites also.

He is a sincere man with a good history in doing very interesting experiments and posting this on his YouTube channel, which he also deleted...

He also worked very hardly on the coil shorting experiments generating huge induction pulses in another device and also worked on a Magnacoaster replication.

I think his wife and the bad visit made him very scary and he just bailed out.

Just let him take a few weeks off.
He will surely come back, when the replications will be successful.

Once someone is able to replicate this, we'd be glad to create and open source page at PESWiki to pull all the relevant instruction material to make it easier for others to do the same, so they don't have to wade through all the pages on the Overunity thread (57+ and counting as of this writing) to hunt down the relevant info.

# # #

This story is also posted at BeforeItsNews.
What You Can Do

Let us know as soon as someone replicates this.
Pass this on to your friends and favorite news sources.
Get involved in replicating, if you're inclined.
Subscribe to our newsletter to stay abreast of the latest, greatest developments in the free energy sector.

What proof do you have that he is a fraud? I have little patience for such arrogant condemnation of this man.

Look, let's start with my research on "overunity" devices. The question is whether or not the output power (Pout) is greater than the input power (Pin) for an electromagnetic device, measured with state-of-the-art equipment.

Can we agree that it is POSSIBLE that there is a source of energy as yet untapped, so that Pout can be greater than Pin -- determined via EXPERIMENTS? If we cannot agree that experiments have precedence over theory or hubris/arrogance, I see no reason to proceed in showing you my data on a device I have, building on the shoulders, the work of others in this arena.

This hardly seems the place -- but no, I think it is a place to determine whether experiment has precedence and whether I have a right, even a responsibility to discuss what I have found out, which I think will benefit humanity.

I await your responses, people of the 9/11 Truth community, starting with snowcrash and kdub, and anyone who actually has done scientific experiments, like Justin.

I wrote that I was willing to show you the DATA and let you comment on it. But no. Why not? Why withdraw when you are about to see actual data, if you can just agree that experiments will guide us into factual truth?

It really is like the battle for bringing forth the truth regarding 9/11. Many withdraw from the discussion rather than look at the data.

I wrote: "Can we agree that it is POSSIBLE that there is a source of energy as yet untapped, so that Pout can be greater than Pin -- determined via EXPERIMENTS? If we cannot agree that experiments have precedence over theory or hubris/arrogance, I see no reason to proceed in showing you my data on a device I have, building on the shoulders, the work of others in this arena.

Snowcrash's scepticism. In some cases he is very informative while in other cases he appears to be a pseudo-sceptic. For example, just recently he together with Vulich and others was pushing the idea that anybody who are sceptical, or even agnostic, towards the government OBL assassination is "hurting the movement" and is more or less an dilettante. As I have not seen evidence for either side here that I find totally convincing I challenged Snowcrash to provide me with the facts (and analysis) that convinced him beyond reasonable doubt. I did so very politely but got no reply (at least when I last checked) and only down-voted. This is pseudo-intellectual and does not belong at 911 blogger in my opinion.

Yes, you are right, Snowcrash is conflating perpetuum mobile with the possibility of untapped energy sources. I'm a fan of the slogan "There are no cranky ideas, only cranky methods." But in the end I can of course understand concerns about the movement looking cranky and crazy. This should be taken seriously. How to proceed with 911 truth is delicate and there are extra-scientific factors involved in making an investigation happen. These factors have a role to play in the movement and should not be shunned.

"I did so very politely but got no reply (at least when I last checked) and only down-voted."

Normally when I don't reply there's a reason; when you insist on asking questions which are answered in abundance elsewhere, (in some cases I repeated the explanation ten times in ten different places) it shows you don't read my comments at all, so why should I read yours? You rehashed the argument that death reports constitute a cumulative argument; I have shown ad nauseam that this is false and that the opposite is true, unless certain conditions are met. You ask me to provide you with evidence to 'convince you beyond reasonable doubt' ... this shows you don't appreciate the glaring question of burden of proof resting on your shoulders, the weight of evidence already provided, cognitive biases and fallacies, and you aren't considering the full breadth, depth and complexity of the alternative hypothesis, which is unspoken but implied. I have tried to educate members of 911blogger about this for a long time, apparently to no avail. Let me simplify this paragraph by stating a simple but overlooked fact: you haven't provided any evidence for your unspoken but implied alternative hypothesis, but easily falsifiable falsification and downplaying of readily available evidence by dismissing it with a circular argument of 'trust' and moreover, when it comes to certain neutral facts, unwarranted and unsupported conjecture and suspicion. In other words: the furtive fallacy.

"This is pseudo-intellectual and does not belong at 911 blogger in my opinion."

"Yes, you are right, Snowcrash is conflating perpetuum mobile with the possibility of untapped energy sources."

Prof. Jones has inspired in me a new theory about WTC 7. Since you are a theoretical physicist, as you claim, you should be able to judge its merits in an expertly fashion. In the following explanation, please assume I am aware of, and acknowledge, every known caveat regarding the premises I put forth, including disputes over pixel measuring accuracies, modes of column failure, absence of visual record of the collapse zone, etc. etc.

WTC 7, according to David Chandler's video, fell in full freefall for approximately 2.5 (Chandler, not NIST) seconds, about 8 stories or approx. a hundred feet. This means all potential energy was expended on kinetic energy, and by Newton's second and third law of motion, this means no force was exerted by gravity (boring, conventional energy!) to crush the enormous volume of steel and concrete that had to be crushed by the upper block in order to move downward. Even if, hypothetically, the core had already collapsed completely when this occurred (NIST data is somewhat contradictory on this point), the perimeter had to have been crushed, and a slowdown had to have occurred.

In other words, unless an external force not due to gravity was involved, a natural collapse theory violates the laws of physics, specifically conservation of momentum, energy and Newton's laws of motion.

However, prof. Jones has just instilled in me the idea that: "there is a source of energy as of yet untapped", meaning there exists an unknown energy source which we cannot measure, otherwise "Pout can[not] be greater than Pin" as prof. Jones explained. You know what this means, don't you? No need for explosives!.

I now believe "free energy" brought down WTC 7 and crushed those 8 stories. I suggest we conduct 'experiments' to test this brand new hypothesis. Sure, I realize, in the field of "free energy", the history of experimentation(overunity!) dates back to the Middle Ages, firmly establishing its merits on about the same level of credibility as alchemy (fool's gold!), but let us not be bothered by that limitation and perform 'experiments' for the next 60 years to see if I'm right. If we're lucky, we'll have solved the puzzle once and for all when we're old enough to wear diapers?

So what do you think? Will you endorse my exciting new theory so we can start spending extraordinary amounts of time and money in pursuit of REAL answers? Do you agree with me that 'free energy' brought down WTC 7? I have affectionately named my theory the "Foot Of God" (FOG), although it is readily apparent I am not trying to FOG the issue. Do you agree? If not, why not? What is your name and location, by the way?

ETA:
I just got a creepy visit from men in black suits. I am afraid. What I just said was all false. Don't try to replicate my theory. Just assume it doesn't work. I don't care about anything else but the safety of my family. If you still want to pursue my theory, just browse my posts on 911blogger. All the answers you'll EVER need are available there. I hope I live. Good bye.

"So what do you think? Will you endorse my exciting new theory so we can start spending extraordinary amounts of time and money in pursuit of REAL answers?"

I'll tell you what I think, SnowCrash, even though you didn't ask me directly. You come up with a good experiment supporting your new theory -- and I mean a GOOD one -- and I'll give it some consideration. You may even win me over to your side.

In the meantime, however, since your new FOG theory deals directly with free energy, you should have no problem honoring my first request of you; namely, that go to overunity.com, locate the plans for the RomeroUK Muller Dynamo, and build it.

And BTW, if you need backup against those guys in black, just let me know.

The error with your argument is this. Physical theories comes with a *domain of applicability*. For example, Newtonian mechanics is an empirically correct theory if we are careful not to apply it outside its domain of applicability, e.g. experiments involving too high velocities (we need to replace it with special relativity here), or strong gravitational fields (we need to replace it with general relativity here), or microscopic systems (we need to replace it with quantum mechanics here).

We can now immediately identify the error in the new collapse theory. This kind of "experiment" lies entirely within the domain of applicability of Newtonian physics. You cannot postulate that there is a new energy source in this domain as we would have seen that phenomena before.

Tell me if this is sufficiently clear explanation of where the error lies. I'll expand on it if you ask.

Let me now turn to the question of "untapped energy sources". 150 years ago water could hardly be thought as an "untapped energy source". At that time Newtonian physics were still believed to be fundamentally correct. But a lot has of course happened since then. In particular, subatomic physics was discovered and also E=mc^2. This has the implication that water can "burn" (producing heavier elements) and be use as an energy source given the right physical circumstances. This also solved a big puzzle about what energy source the sun was using. Before scientists could not provide satisfactory explanations for why the sun had not already consumed all its (then proposed) conventional fuel.

Let me now end by expressing my scepticism towards Rossi's experiment. This experiment appears to lie entirely within the domain of applicability of subatomic physics. And within that theory the proposed explanation is simply incorrect (proton absorption to nucleus). I know next to nothing about what Pr. Jones is experimenting with and I do not have the data so I cannot comment on that. But I would be interested in learning more so that I can assess the situation myself.

I wonder if you could return the favour and present your best pieces of evidence that demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that OBL was killed the way we've been told by the US government. If you are worried that too many people start supporting bad ideas here, I think the best strategy for you would be to write a short essay about the evidence and the relevant analysis.

is impossible, regardless of domain of applicability. Should I start quoting and citing? Be careful. Overunity is synonymous with perpetual motion. Do not take me or this forum for fools.

And yes, I already knew about domains of applicability, even though I'm not a physicist. See me mention this in 2009. Note how ferociously I'm supporting prof. Jones.

Can you cite me ONE physics textbook, just ONE, which claims "overunity" (perpetual motion) is possible in ANY domain?

As for an 'essay', I am several steps ahead of you; that essay is already forthcoming, and source study has been in progress ever since Bin Laden died. There is a huge "but" here though.

Had you properly read my comment (you are a repeat offender) you would have understood it is you who needs to write an essay, citing positive, verifiable evidence, instead of relying on falsification-speculation and fallacious logic, including the furtive fallacy.

Do you understand the difference? You are in no position to be making demands for an 'essay' at this juncture, and this misconception is at the center of your delusion.

I suggest you read these paragraphs several times, in order to let it sink in. You still ignore, very dishonestly, my remarks about the impossibility of death reports forming a cumulative argument. You also haven't disclosed your identity, while people repeatedly demand I identify myself for some reason. (And when asked, I do so promptly) Why the double standard? Should I start calling people CIA agents like has been done to me countless times now? It would be only fair to do so, after months of abuse. But I won't, because I know it's nonsense.

Meanwhile, I would like to know if prof. Jones posts at overunity (dot) com as "JouleSeeker", and references himself there in this post on overunityresearch (dot) com, posting as "PhysicsProf":

"I've been thinking along the same lines. Totally agree. But how to share without being squashed? again? I have a great deal of sympathy for RomeroUK -- I've been there in a rather similar situation, and in my case, it cost me my job. I hope Romero keeps his, for his family's sake especially."

(...)

"Let's say a friend has a device, that appears using state-of-the-art DSO's to determine Pin and Pout -- clearly is overunity."

Is that you, prof. Jones, implying a 'friend' has achieved overunity? I wouldn't want to jump the gun and misidentify you.

Not just any friend, a brilliant friend, and the work has been replicated:

"But if you can think of another way to communicate privately, I'd like to hear it, and then maybe my brilliant friend will share his circuit with you. He'd like to so that it could be checked, but is intimidated. Yes, its has been replicated and looks good... but I expect you'll want to try it yourself. One transistor, bifilar winding, brilliant IMO. How can he communicate it to serious (and non-black-suit) types?"

That would mean changing the world and the entire face of science, wouldn't it? And what better place to announce it than on the forum you yourself insist isn't as serious by far as the other forum:

"With regard to EM devices -- Look, you keep pointing to "overunity.com" -- my work is posted ONLY at overunityRESEARCH.com, which I linked in the previous post. These are distinct forums. A much more serious group IMO -- in that I insist on RIGOR IN MEASUREMENTS as do most of the folks there at OUResearch."

I will make another attempt at understanding why you think the OBL death is proven beyond reasonable doubt. But right now I think that Nafeez's commentary was very balanced. I just want to understand this issue better and I care not for long-winded arguments about burden of proof.

I think you are probably misinterpreting Steven Jones. In the blog "Experimental Science to the Rescue: 9/11, Cold Fusion, now Alt-Energy" he says

"In recent months, I have done tests using advanced techniques to evaluate input and output power -- experiments that suggest there MAY be a previously-untapped source of energy here. (I still believe in the law of Conservation of Mass-Energy!)"

Although only loosely stated, I take this to mean "I don't believe in perpetuum mobile".

The real issue is of course not energy. Energy can never be consumed as it is a conserved quantity. Rather it is something called exergy:

Although there is a consensus that perpetuum mobile do not exist (you cannot extract work (e.g. run an engine) from a thermodynamic system with zero exergy) the issue is surprisingly tricky. This has to do with that the microscopic laws of physics are time-reversal invariant and do not guarantee that entropy always increase. This is related to something called Maxwell's demon:

Prof. Jones owes the rest of the 9/11 Truth community one. 2752 people died in the World Trade Center. None of their memories are honored by the pursuit of fake earthquakes or perpetual motion devices. I've seen you, too, have begun asking some questions, but I doubt you'll ever get real answers.

"Maxwell's Demon: This was originally proposed to show that the Second Law of Thermodynamics applied in the statistical sense only, by postulating a "demon" that could select energetic molecules and extract their energy. Subsequent analysis (and experiment) have shown there is no way to physically implement such a system that does not result in an overall increase in entropy."

Prof. Steven Jones

"Let's start with my research on "overunity" devices. The question is whether or not the output power (Pout) is greater than the input power (Pin) for an electromagnetic device, measured with state-of-the-art equipment."

"Despite the claims of scam artists or ‘‘inventors,’’ scientists agree that perpetual motion can never be an energy source. It is impossible to get more energy out of a machine than you put into it: machines can only change the form that energy is in. The laws of physics say that you can’t get something for nothing—at least, not for long. In a sense, it is possible to store ‘‘energy’’ for a while in some devices, but batteries and other storage devices (which also decay over time) can only give back whatever energy is put into them. Perpetual motion machines will never supply the world with energy."

Perpetual motion

Perpetual motion describes hypothetical machines that operate or produce useful work indefinitely and, more generally, hypothetical machines that produce more work or energy than they consume, whether they might operate indefinitely or not.

There is undisputed scientific consensus that perpetual motion would violate either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both. Machines which comply with both laws of thermodynamics but access energy from obscure sources are sometimes referred to as perpetual motion machines, although they do not meet the standard criteria for the name.

(Obscure sources are not "sources as of yet unknown"... that would mean energy inputs one could actually measure, solar panels were once 'obscure' too, and Pout is NOT larger than Pin)

Despite the fact that successful perpetual motion devices are physically impossible in terms of our current understanding of the laws of physics, the pursuit of perpetual motion remains popular.

Use of the term "impossible" and perpetual motion

While the laws of physics are incomplete and stating that physical things are absolutely impossible is un-scientific, "impossible" is used in common parlance to describe those things which absolutely cannot occur within the context of our current formulation of physical laws.[6]

The conservation laws are particularly robust from a mathematical perspective. Noether's theorem, which was proven mathematically in 1915, states that any conservation law can be derived from a corresponding continuous symmetry of the action of a physical system.[7] This means that if the laws of physics (not simply the current understanding of them, but the actual laws, which may still be undiscovered) and the various physical constants remain invariant over time — if the laws of the universe are fixed — then the conservation laws must hold. On the other hand, if the conservation laws are invalid, then much of modern physics would be incorrect as well.[8]

History of perpetual motion machines

"The history of perpetual motion machines dates back to the Middle Ages. For millennia, it was not clear whether perpetual motion devices were possible or not, but the development of modern thermodynamics has indicated that they are impossible. Despite this, many attempts have been made to construct a perpetual motion machine. Modern designers and proponents often use other terms, such as over unity, to describe their inventions."

People should reflect deeply on these facts. Once you understand them you see that further discussion of free energy is effectively taking away our "energy", and using it for nothing. Rather than get something out of nothing (physically impossible), we are taking something (our time and energy) and turning it into nothing. This topic deserves about as much attention from us as the issue of building a machine that can accelerate faster than the speed of light. If you understand consensus in the scientific community around something as strong as the laws of thermodynamics, then you understand that some things in physics are simply not possible, including building a device that can magically produce more energy than it consumes. This is like taking one hundred pennies and trying to arrange them to have more value than a dollar. There's no shame in educating yourself on an issue, and when you look into this at the highest level using trusted experts you find a much different picture than the one Dr. Jones is providing.

he became a reactionist truther, sharing the same viewpoints like common debunkers. I pointed that out on several occasions already. This is per sé no problem, but it should abondon any claiming of snowcrash as a leader or avantgarde thinker for the movement.

that somebody throwin in, and the with straw men method all points were beeing dismissed. We should always make that clear, that the real problem of the "debunkers" is not the debunking of some minor, uncommon points, but their agenda.

And I stay with my view: Esp. snowcrash sounds more and more like this kind of guys. And Up- and Downvoting doesn't change that.

The question is if the points are indeed minor and uncommon, and if this movement is about 'truth' or 'exciting theories'.

I choose truth. Anytime. Who cares if that aligns with the official story or not? Clearly, there are many things which do not align with the official story, and the nanothermite paper is one of them. Can we afford to have the figurehead, the lightning rod of attention for this paper, the spiritual father of this paper, to start claiming he has achieved overunity, i.e. 'free energy' at Conspiracy Con? Claim elsewhere that several recent earthquakes were triggered by the United States, not by nature? Is that 'minor'? I think not. It's absolutely essential.

Yes, there are some of us here who are tired of hearing Glenn Zarmanov sleuthing for numerology clues in Simpson episodes, or uploading interviews with Dick Cheney quoted severely out-of-context. The tools of deception are extremely clear to me now. I see how this movement has been marginalized successfully -- and others see it too.

"they" are doing this for years now. And I think they were not that much successful, at least scientists, architects and engineers, firefighters, actors viewed the arguments themselves and rallied around in great numbers aorund the best organisations we have. (and these are the ones the mainstream media silenced at most) It has no merits to engage in endless discussions, not for me, and I suppose for nobody else. Think about the main distrust the latest raid story generates, at least here in germany (I suppose it's the same in the netherlands). We are much wider than you think. I do my own positive way, we founded a registered association lately to distribute info material. Every one can engage in this kind of stuff, without endless debates. I'm closing off here,

We are talking about someone seriously insightful and thoughtful who is also willing to apologize and correct themselves openly if they are wrong. However your comment sitting-bull is as reactionist as they come.

"This is per sé no problem, but it should abondon any claiming of snowcrash as a leader or avantgarde thinker for the movement."

Who's claiming him as a leader. IF ONLY we had "leaders" like snowcrash. Unfortunately, the only people claiming to be leaders are nothing of the sort. They have led us into the dirt. Alex Jones, Barrett, DRG the whole LOT of them have lead us into to garbage and hyper speculation. The psuedo-leaders have discredited us. If ONLY more people seeking 9/11 justice were as critical and thoughtful as snowcrash. What an unnecessary personal attack of yours sitting-bull.

It was my description of what I see, a word for a tendency, I do not have a better word in english. I know it's rude to say "reactionist" because of its meaning. If he takes this personally I concur and want to apologize. But what should I make out of that snowcash recently withdraw his support for the scientific studies we have and we should admit we were wrong on Bin Laden while the US admin offers not a single proof for their fable. It's crazy.
I understand we want the best witnesses, clear like a white-room, with no points for the prosecutor to attack- but we are just men. If you look for that guy so end in a white room, alone, on your own, with a wall of gum probably. Everyone helds his own personal beliefs, there are no white-room witnesses with nothing to attack. So why should we think and act ourselves like the so called debunkers? They will attack and distort us anyway, it's not on us.
I have a question for you: You know the law of motions, which proves the official account on what did happened to the three buildings on 9/11 wrong. By Isaac Newton.
I think these laws are well accepted and common standard. But Newton believed in Atlantis and the devil in his lifetime. Would have a strong companion rejected the laws of motions hypothesis because of that? No?
This is exactly what snowcrash is doing here. Even worse, because ProfJones research was based on his experimental obssesion and he did not published studies on it so far. He even distorts ProfJones research on energy to make it look like poor overunity research. All in the name of getting the best possible witness, while nobody is left over.

'So why should we think and act ourselves like the so called debunkers? They will attack and distort us anyway, it's not on us.'

While I agree they will attack and distort us anyway, one thing that I would think all in this movement could agree on--regardless of any differences of opinion on other matters--is that we absolutely don't want to make things any easier for them. They have enough advantages as it is.

Being familiar with how these so-called debunkers tend to argue against us, and trying to understand why it is that we are not always persuasive--perhaps even counterproductive--when debating before audiences that are not already inclined to agree with us: this is something that a movement to uncover the truth evidently needs to do. In trying to arrive at such an understanding--in the interest of protecting this movement from being discredited as much as possible--there may be disagreements along the way; and such efforts are not to be confused with truthseeking in its entirety. But it is an unavoidable part of it. The question, 'How might someone try to debunk me if I say "this is what happened"?,' for example, is not the same as asking, 'What happened?' or 'What do I think happened?' But the former question might help you toward finding a better answer to the latter.

Again, there will be disagreements. As we see in this thread, Professor Jones is apparently confident that he will be able to respond in an effective way to any critics who might try to debunk his research in other areas as a way of doing damage to the 9/11 truth movement. While some others who've posted in this thread are saying that they are not so confident of that.

About Isaac Newton: Belief in a devil was widespread at that time (and still hasn't gone away altogether, in fact), so that wouldn't have presented problems to his contemporaries. I don't know what the state of belief in the existence of Atlantis was at the time. Regardless, his findings in science would have lived on. But imagine if, besides pursuing the studies that made him famous and changed our understanding of the universe, he was also a prominent figure in a movement that charged the British monarchy with covering up the truth about the murder of thousands of British subjects on British soil?; possibly of even being complicit in said murder, as a pretext to launch wars and cracking down on the rights of the people? In that case, if he did have any views that were outside the norm for his society (or at least from the standpoint of the 'opinion-shapers' of the day), you can bet that his views on those other matters would have come under much closer scrutiny by the authorities and their minions in the press (and whatever equivalent of the 'online community' they would have had). And while the work that made his scientific reputation would have lived on after him regardless, the political movement of which he was a prominent figure would likely have had much at stake in whether or not he was able to answer such critics effectively.

I have no reason to write you. When asked for definitive evidence here you backed away and now just try and attack Snowcrash. Well great, doesn't speak very highly of your credibility. Especially when you are being asked by people who have defended you for years and even paid a lot to see you (back in 06). There is no appealing to your own authority. 9/11 truth has taken a free-fall collapse into it's own footprint the last few weeks. No one is getting pounced on. You, ProfJones get a comparatively large amount of attention for someone who is after 9/11 justice. Therefore YOU must especially uphold your own standard which you pushed on 9/11 truth so well all these years. If you start spreading earthquake machine theories based on speculation and then present them to the public as even "very possible" without proof, you HURT the truth movement. You HURT our chances for justice. I know you know this for you have seen it happen with the laser beams garbage. You have seen it happen with many unsupported theories latched on to 9/11 truth. We have to have standards for our public outreach which I think YOU ProfJones have ALWAYS advocated for. Why change now? Your indirect responses to our questions don't help clear up the mystery.

It's not hubris to balk at the idea that you are working on a machine that is universally regarded by the scientific community as being not theoretically possible due to it's necessary violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Why in response to the criticism do you demand to know Snowcrash's identity? A reasonable scientist would be well aware that people are not openminded to the idea of the perpetual motion machine. If you are a member of the scientific community that should be a familiar experience to you. I find it offensive that you demand Snowcrash's identity, especially because he is well known to us and has never concealed anything.

-- why do you say it does? Is tapping into the earth's enormous magnetic field a violation of the laws of physics, or in violation of the laws of thermodynamics? I don't think so. Note, though, that to PROVE the source of the incoming energy, further experiments will be required.

I did not call this a perpetual motion machine -- what nonsense.

Also, I asked to know his identity so that I would not be talking to an anonymous person. Note that I use my name, and I like to know if the person I'm talking to has done any scientific experiments himself, or has looked at the data. Or is even WILLING to look at the data!

Dr. Jones - Can you provide an explanation of the theoretical support for the notion that you can "tap into the Earth's magnetic field" (or a link to it)? It's my understanding that you need a rotating or oscillating magnetic field to run a motor. I suppose the Earth is rotating, but fast enough to generate usable power?

My (admittedly non-professional) opinion is that nuclear power is the future, perhaps controlled fusion.

-- but controlling fusion for use on a community scale has proven to be difficult. We're not there after over 50 years of working on nuclear fusion.
And it does involve radioactive waste, at the very least the reactor walls, but more likely involving radioactive tritium.

Whereas -- novel electromagnetic energy sources have NO radioactive waste.
I'm an experimentalist and await firm experimental results before I'll delve much into the theory. There are getting to be solid results, so you shouldn't have to wait long for theory to follow. With working devices worldwide -- I predict within a year -- further experiments should rather quickly disclose HOW they work.

Certainly, there is an enormous potential energy stored in the earth's magnetic field, generated evidently by a dynamo inside the molten iron-nickel core of the earth.

Note: This Prof Jones/free-energy/earthquake/conspiracy con discussion is off-topic in this thread w/ an OP re: Ventura's space beams endorsement, but at the same time it seems appropriate. Too late to un-derail this thread anyway.

Prof Jones: So, you're working on a method for tapping the "enormous potential energy stored in the earth's magnetic field." You also said you post under another name at a free energy discussion forum.

1) What is the user name and the name of the forum? (a link to a specific thread would be good)

As you asked for my name and location in the "Griscom peer-reviewer thread", and have asked for SnowCrash's name and location in this thread, it seems by the standard you've asked of us, you should be willing to provide these.

2) If you decline to state; what is the reason you want to keep these secret from 911blogger users, while at the same time stating you've been posting your information and ideas for public consumption elsewhere?

3) Have you submitted this information for publication in a peer-reviewed journal? Or have you published your findings in a paper published on any website?

4) If so, please provide details, links, etc. If not, what is the reason you're presenting this information at Conspiracy Con, and sites like overunity.com?

Judging by the list of speakers, few, if any, of your peers will be in attendance at this conference; few, if any, of your peers spend time on the ad and hoax-riddled overunity.com.

5) What is the evidence for 'earthquake-inducing devices'? You've already been asked about this more than once in this thread, and have declined to provide any; the only thing you said was:

"The evidence supporting the existence of Earthquake inducing devices is considerable and growing, along with statements by Sec'y of Defense Cohen (and Z. Brzezinski) of their existence. You would do well to attend my talk, or get a copy of the DVD of it."

Erik: "Prof Jones: So, you're working on a method for tapping the "enormous potential energy stored in the earth's magnetic field."
That is one potential model, but not one that I propose as THE model for my experiments -- as I've said, experimental demonstration of more power out than in, in an electromagnetic (EM) device, is what I'm working on. I do not espouse any particular theoretical model at present.

1) "What is the user name and the name of the forum? "
PhysicsProf on overunityresearch.com . This thread which I initiated would be a good place to start:

2) "If you decline to state; what is the reason you want to keep these secret from 911blogger users," why would I decline to state? see point 1.

3) and 4) Preliminary findings are published on that website where they have been/are receiving reviews from peers whom I respect. Also, I have shown my results and work to others, electronics experts, for peer evaluation.
With my 9/11 research, I had peers reviewing my work before I published in a formal peer-reviewed journal (an important step!) -- about a YEAR of research and talks led up to that formal publicaiton. I think one year's research and talks prior to a formal publication is about right, and I expect to submit for publication by the end of 2011 regarding a novel EM device.
There are knowledgable people going to con-con or in the near-vicinity (Santa Clara, California, area) whom I wish to see.

Erik: "hoax-riddled overunity.com" -- this is a judgment on your part which you have not substantiated at all.

5) I have recently discussed the evidence I have accumulated for earthquake initiation with other scientists. While they agree that the data point to something there, my peers do not recommend public disclosure of these tectonic-initiation data at this time. I have decided not to present these data publicly at this time, and will not be discussing these data at con-con and I have informed the organizer of this decision. He should have the title of my talk and precis changed in short order, I trust.

"riddled" would be a subjective judgment to be sure; in your view, what percentage of the devices and concepts discussed at overunity.com have potential to provide 'free energy'?

Unless I missed it, I don't see anything in the thread you linked above that indicates any kind of result demonstrating 'over unity.'

I admit I haven't thoroughly researched the subject; from the stuff I've stumbled across online, it seems like total BS, and none of these devices or methods has ever been shown to produce 'free energy.' Also, the claims that a researcher has made an astounding breakthrough, only to be paid a visit by the men in black, whereupon they disappear after posting sensational details, are pretty routine; this romero uk is simply a recent example. It's kind of like the large number people in the 9/11 truth movement who've seemed normal until they started promoting BS.

And this 2008 quote from Stefan Hartmann just raises all kind of red flags; he couldn't get his 'Newman machine' to run w/o batteries ... so he started an internet business; overunity.com:

"As I could not really get my Newman machine to self-run without batteries and did not understand the main effects at this time, I quit working on it and began studying other free energy topics. I worked in the PC graphics card business during the 90s; and then later started my own Internet business. Now I am working almost full-time to keep my OverUnity.com site running as we already have over 12,000 members."http://www.opednews.com/articles/Free-Energy-and-the-Open-S-by-jibbguy-080623-466.html

Meanwhile, the price/performance of solar continues to improve at an exponential rate, along with great improvements in efficiency/capacity of wind, wave, tidal, geothermal, algae oil, and other renewables, as well as in storage and energy efficiency.

Earthquake-inducing devices; so, after making claims Haiti was man-made at the AE911Truth 1000 engineer press conference, and having them included in the description of your Con Con presentation, you're not going to talk about this publicly "at this time." I appreciate your position on this, and the disclosure. However, do you think making these claims in public, which you now are stating are not ready for public disclosure, has damage your reputation, and by association, the reputation of the 9/11 truth movement? Please explain.

"after making claims Haiti was man-made at the AE911Truth 1000 engineer press conference", not at the press conference, not even in the same room. The data were presented to a small group AFTER the press conference and well received I might add. You were not there. No press reports of it, I'm quite certain.

Have you seen any of my data?

NONE of my EQ-iinduction DATA were presented in the con-con precis. And as I said, I will not be discussing the EQ-induction data publicly at this conference. Clear enough?

With regard to EM devices -- Look, you keep pointing to "overunity.com" -- my work is posted ONLY at overunityRESEARCH.com, which I linked in the previous post. These are distinct forums. A much more serious group IMO -- in that I insist on RIGOR IN MEASUREMENTS as do most of the folks there at OUResearch. Why won't you follow the link to overunityresearch.com that I provided -- at your request? When you read what I have posted there, I'd be interested in your comments -- on this BLOG of mine please:

I sense a change in attitude among my friends and colleagues. There is more acceptance for 911 truth than ever before. I think this has to do with ae911truth and their professional image.

I think it is easy to get too bogged down with all the internal debates going on. There are two main ways of fighting dis- or mis-info. You can 1) debunk the (d)misinfo or 2) you can try to eclipse the (d)misinfo by being a source of cutting edge 911truth material and development. I feel that 1) is necessary but has side effects if not done carefully as it divides and drains energy. I think 2) is what ae911truth is pushing and pushing well.

Earth's magnetic field is almost static. I say almost because it varies very slowly over time.

I do not see how one can extract energy from a static magnetic field. For example, a charged particle would be influenced with a force which is perpendicular to the direction of motion in accordance with the Lorenz force law. This however does not increase the kinetic energy of the particle and so no energy will be transferred in this way. Since the field varies slowly one can of course use that to extract energy with a magnetized material (in a way similar to tidal power plants). But the power extractable in this way must be extremely small.

Is there a proposed mechanism for how energy could be extracted from earth magnetic field?

Also, any energy extraction from the magnetic field must result in a demagnetization of earth. Will this have unwanted consequences? How much energy is there in earth magnetic field? Do you have a rough number in say Joules?

before jumping to any conclusions. Isn't that what we always tell debunkers when they criticize 9/11 truth science?

Plans for the Muller Dynamo recently created by RomeroUK are readily available at the overunity.com website. Why don't you use them to conduct a few experiments to prove that perpetual motion is a hoax?

There are several lengthy and impressive videos of the Muller Dynamo in action. You should check them out.

As for the memory lapses and such, if the man has no experience being confronted by authority, not being able to concentrate for an extended period of time due to fear and anxiety is completely plausible.

Not everyone is a hardened 9/11 truth activist, you know. ;)

Also, this is useful to the 9/11 truth community if we want other scientists to look at our work. If we help them with their problems constructing this device, they may be grateful.

when you say:
"Also, this is useful to the 9/11 truth community if we want other scientists to look at our work. If we help them with their problems constructing this device, they may be grateful."

Yes, and not only those in the energy research arena, but also those who would appreciate a new source of energy! that includes most everyone in the world.

We have an opportunity here to FIGHT for the truth regarding novel energy sources, demonstrated empirically by hard evidence again, and I must add, against a considerable opposition. But serving humanity in this way is far more important than caving to opposition.

PS -- can someone please tell me how to cast a vote here on comments? I just don't know how this works... ProfSJones@gmail.com.

You appeal to authority as some of your evidence "Sec'y of Defense Cohen (and Z. Brzezinski) of their existence." Your other responses as well seem to veer waayy of from my point. It's that unless you have definitive proof that can be held to the same standard YOU have always advocated, presenting things like this HURTS the truth movement. Not only does it not have anything to do with 9/11, but it sounds crazy and offensive. It sounds offensive if you invest heavily into this idea and spread it as truth if you can't prove it. It is offensive to people who were killed in the earth quake if you spread theories like they are truth. We have been made to look a fool of heavily the last few weeks and I don't want anymore of it. You Prof. Jones have always pushed a high standard of research. Please don't drop the ball now right when we get close to the 10th anniversary. I'm skeptical..Do we just have to wait for your presentation to find out your evidence? Can you give us more credible references?

[Note: I know an 80-year-old professional geologist very well, he also happens to be the leading expert on the seismology of the LA basin. He also happens to be a truther.]

In the old days they used to use explosives to create the small earthquakes needed to get a seismic picture of what was going on inside the earth.

My oldest brother worked on a seismic survey boat one summer in the Caribbean, maintaining the pneumatic "guns" that are used to create the underwater explosions needed for seismic work.

With the advances in technology, they now use trucks which basically vibrate faults at extremely low frequencies to trigger small earthquakes and produce the images needed to study what's going on beneath the surface of the earth.

I was at the post press conference lunch when Dr. Jones first publicly put forth his hypothesis regarding human-induced earthquakes. I was somewhat aghast as this informal talk was being live-streamed on the web for all to see, even though this was a very rough hypothesis with no where near enough data.

However, I then initiated a conversation with the above-mentioned person who has quite a bit of expertise in the field and he was forced to concede that IF the power was turned up enough, THEN it might be possible for a significant seismic event to be triggered. He would like to see some data ( a lot of data, actually), of course, as any responsible scientist would.

Thus, I was forced to concede that Dr. Jones may be right about earthquake inducing technology.

This entire debate comes out of the differing roles that researchers and activists play.

Scientists and researchers are always speculating ( that's what a hypothesis is, yes?) and then testing their hypothesis, refining it as needed or rejecting it entirely, if the data demands.

Responsible activists, on the other hand, are loathe to speculate in public, as this only opens them to potential ridicule and is thus counter-productive to effective public education.

It is therefore very important that we keep a firewall in place between the research wing of the truth movement (esp. with those who may be doing research in unrelated areas) and the activist side of the truth movement (maybe we could even call this a "friendly fence").

There is also a natural tension between the research community and the activist community, and this is a good thing. We activists ask the researchers for certainty and for explanations that the public can understand. In turn, researchers need to check our materials to make sure they are correct and not overly simplistic.

We now have way more than enough information to convince the thinking public that the government story is provably false and that a new investigation, a real criminal investigation, is still very much needed. So, let's focus on refining and expanding our public presentation, rather than continue to tear ourselves apart over what should be non-issues.

As an activist I know how frustrating it can be when one of our leading lights says or does something that has the potential to be a public relations disaster, but this is the nature of humanity, science, politics and the zoo that is now our media-driven public discourse.

I think we should all just step back and remember that this movement does not rise or fall with one issue or one person, that the truth marches on and we are best served by just following it wherever it leads and that everyone has to find their own truth in their own way.

We also need to acknowledge that there are many things we don't know (not only about 9/11, either) and allow room in our imaginations for things that may seem wild to some of us today.

The truth shall set us free, and truth seeking is a never ending process.

Love is the only way forward, and love is infinite (see how nicely that all works together?).

One thing, I don't think my brief talk on artificial earthquakes was live-streamed; I did not give permission for that. I'm checking on that.

But yes, I'm a researcher, have been all my life really. And I would be glad to send to you PPT slides on the man-made earthquake data that you could send to your geologist friend for inspection if you wish.

HOWEVER -- I've concluded that my present effort to research novel electordynamic devices and help bring forth the evidence there is quite enough for my plate at this time.

I've thought of an analogy to help explain why such a device would NOT be -- as I have repeatedly said -- a "perpetual motion" machine as some here have erroneously posited. Think of an electric-power generator that has an electrical starter. This has more electrical power OUT than IN, and so is "overunity" as I defined it here in my blog on the subject:

This has input energy from the fossil fuel consumed. Novel electrodynamic devices would have input energy from another source. So the issue then is -- are all sources of energy known at the present time? That is the question. It is not an issue of violating laws of physics which have been established experimentally and which I taught for over two decades as a full Professor of Physics. (I'm amused by assertions that I'm saying otherwise.)

I am saying that there may be -- evidently are (based on my own experiments and measurements of novel electordynamic devices) -- novel sources of energy that we are just learning about.

"Let's start with my research on "overunity" devices. The question is whether or not the output power (Pout) is greater than the input power (Pin) for an electromagnetic device, measured with state-of-the-art equipment."

A device that produces more than it consumes, can power itself and run in perpetuity, can it not?

A perpetual motion device violates the law of conservation of energy, so in order to sidestep that problem, one can just claim a "new source of energy" has been discovered and is being tapped into, correct?

ABSTRACT
A system is disclosed for converting energy from the electromagnetic quantum vacuum available at any point in the universe to usable energy in the form of heat, electricity, mechanical energy or other forms of power. By suppressing electromagnetic quantum vacuum energy at appropriate frequencies a change may be effected in the electron energy levels which will result in the emission or release of energy. Mode suppression of electromagnetic quantum vacuum radiation is known to take place in Casimir cavities. A Casimir cavity refers to any region in which electromagnetic modes are suppressed or restricted. When atoms enter into suitable micro Casimir cavities a decrease in the orbital energies of electrons in atoms will thus occur. Such energy will be captured in the claimed devices. Upon emergence form such micro Casimir cavities the atoms will be reenergized by the ambient electromagnetic quantum vacuum. In this way energy is extracted locally and replenished globally from and by the electromagnetic quantum vacuum. This process may be repeated an unlimited number of times. This process is also consistent with the conservation of energy in that all usable energy does come at the expense of the energy content of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum. Similar effects may be produced by acting upon molecular bonds. Devices are described in which gas is recycled through a multiplicity of Casimir cavities. The disclosed devices are scalable in size and energy output for applications ranging from replacements for small batteries to power plant sized generators of electricity.

SnowCrash -- as I said earlier,
"I've thought of an analogy to help explain why such a device would NOT be -- as I have repeatedly said -- a "perpetual motion" machine as some here have erroneously posited. Think of an electric-power generator that has an electrical starter. This has more electrical power OUT than IN, and so is "overunity" as I defined it here in my blog on the subject:

This has input energy from the fossil fuel consumed. Novel electrodynamic devices would have input energy from another source. So the issue then is -- are all sources of energy known at the present time? That is the question. It is not an issue of violating laws of physics which have been established experimentally and which I taught for over two decades as a full Professor of Physics. (I'm amused by assertions that I'm saying otherwise.)

I am saying that there may be -- evidently are (based on my own experiments and measurements of novel electordynamic devices) -- novel sources of energy that we are just learning about."

As long as the external source of energy provides energy, then the device will run -- just as the generator will run as long as you supply it with fuel. No violation of Physics laws in either case.

the real question is *where* does any energy that is 'found' come from!

The patent cited by Mekt_Ranzz is interesting. But, in it, the above basic question remains. As far as I can see, you can't just suck energy from the zero point fluctuations, since the uncertainty principle (more basic physics) would be violated by the vacuum.

While the points raised above about energy are good questions, I would caution 'Truthers' like us from discussing this in public, too near the 911 issue. The rule is that anything we say publicly WILL be used against us, if it is possible.

"New Evidence for New Forces?" - that's pretty gutsy. A new force usually causes a revolution in physics, which does not happen very often.

There is no reason in hell for solar flares to affect nuclear decay rates, from the point of view of modern physics. Yet their data go back many years, and have been taken by several groups. It's now a matter of time (and a lot of hard work) to see if the effect has some mundane explanation, or is something remarkable.

"On the other hand, some recent results suggest the possibility that decay rates might have a weak dependence (0.5% or less) on environmental factors. It has been suggested that measurements of decay rates of silicon-32, manganese-54, and radium-226 exhibit small seasonal variations (of the order of 0.1%), proposed to be related to either solar flare activity or distance from the sun.[7][8][9] However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper [10] has found no evidence for such correlations in a half-dozen isotopes, and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects. However, research at Purdue University indicates that the rate of radioactive decay may not be truly constant, but slightly influenced by solar flares due to variations in solar neutrino flux.[11]"

I tried to discourage it to no avail, as I was quite certain that your research was not to the point of being ready for a full public airing.

I was equally certain that putting it out in public at that time was not the best PR move for the movement, AE911Truth.org or you. For one, I know very well that scientists don't like to have hurried, partially done preliminary presentations put out into the public and you stated up front that you were seeking a lot more data before you were going to come to any kind of theoretical conclusion regarding the research.

The live stream was of very poor quality (not 911tv.org, we were quickly breaking our gear down) and not archived by the broadcaster, so unless someone recorded the live stream on their equipment, it is gone and no archive exists.

The person doing the live stream considered it "news" that everyone was entitled to (even though this was at a private luncheon AFTER a public event).

I know of at least one person who viewed it online in real time.

I will contact you about the PPT slides, as I have been meaning to ask you if you wanted to work with some earth scientists on this, anyway.

It really is unfortunate that so many people don't understand how science is done (the process) and immediately jump to conclusions, but since 9/11 truth is fraught with political considerations and bedeviled with things that look like classic cointelpro, it is not surprising that so many get so upset over what is normal scientific investigation, research, presentations and papers. It seems that most activists would prefer to not even hear about something until it has been peer-reviewed and published (even though we have found that many don't even understand that process at all well).

As for tapping unknown energy sources, I think it rather funny that anyone would think that everything is known about anything, let alone something as basic as all the various energy sources in the cosmos.

As for the overunity device, I have a brother who I'm sure would love to build one and test it. He is a working EE, loves to build things and would enjoy working with you on this, if you are interested. If it is not too expensive to build, he may build one as a further independent test of the concept/design.

I consider it an honor to know you, Dr. Jones, because you have the courage to take on these highly politically charged scientific issues when so many others pursue a more orthodox and/or more profitable path.

I think your quiet courage should be celebrated and not castigated, but then I come from a family which has always celebrated science.

That said, as an activist, we do need to build a good firewall between your published work on the science of 9/11 (e.g. nanothermite) and your other work, which seems to make many very uneasy within the movement. I'm not sure how to do this other than to have others take the lead when presenting the 9/11-related materials, such as Dr. Harrit, Dr. Farrer or Kevin Ryan.

Thanks again for all your great work (and, hopefully, there is much more to come!).

Hope to see you out in the SF bay area sometime soon.

The truth shall set us free, and truth seeking is a never-ending process.

Love is the only way forward, and love means letting people pursue their interests.

Oh god. I didn't realize how open this was. On the Thom Hartmann program TODAY, Jessie when he starts talking about 9/11 says, "I learned just recently that there were 1400 cars near the towers, vaporized with microwaves. There were some weird weapons being used on that day.."

gloating over this or whatever. I feel .. I don't know... tired could be the correct word here. Indifferent. Despondent maybe. Annoyed. But somebody who didn't make this movement shouldn't be able to break it either. So, Jesse, time for you to truly piss off now and go do something else with your life.

I honestly think its a goddamn shame that 9/11 truth enthusiasts disregard warning signs and latch on to every charlatan, nut job, and opportunist that AJ gives air time to. Thats why the public perception of 9/11 truth is so horrid. Nothing there to gloat over, you dig?

I have a problem with the big tent approach. What the hell kind of movement ousts people like Paul Thompson and John Judge, but embraces the Judy Woods, the Kevin Barretts, the Morgan Reynolds, the Jim Fetzers?

But, SC, Jesse will not only NOT piss off, he will probably be happy to continue going on mainstream TV shows to spout nonsense and look silly and lie about being a Navy SEAL, etc etc. And so on.

Hopefully we will reach Ventura to help him understand the scientific method, and the strength of that system in the case of examining what happened 9/11/01/ He seems sincere, but sometimes gets misguided, like Alex Jones and others about the planet's warming, and out of balance CO2 impact.on our atmosphere by burning fossil fuels for Centuries.. I will try to contact Jesse via FB and send him the new Prof. Jones post and this one [Bad link]

Yes, this is very disappointing to me, too, especially since I'm one who has been telling friends/folks how courageous, smart, and full of integrity he is, and how I wish he'd run for president with an independent Ron Paul. (Even though I think the latter's lack of support for the social safety net is disturbing and needs correction, imo.)
Great idea, Jonathan, to contact him. If you get any other contact info I'd be interested to write him a qualified 'fan letter,' but I don't do FB. Make sure he sees/becomes familiar (ask if he's even aware of these two reputable websites and the hardworking scientists, researchers, academicians, the ":#2's" above.) Make sure he has ae's 9/11 Investigator newspaper, glossy handouts, and "Blueprint for Truth. Give him links to Graham's and Kevin's info. Maybe it's not too late for him to be "redirected" and properly educated. A way to determine whether humility and truth can overcome ego and misconception.
Below is a page of links compiled to spread amongst those not yet 'in the know,' not to sound like we own the secret or anything. It's indeed an uphill battle in this day of entertainment and reality shows. I wonder if Ventura even does internet? That is one of the great divides: tv watchers vs.internet 'explorers,' and obviously amongst the latter exist many deviant paths!

At the 11:20 mark, she says that WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 plus other buildings were
turned to dust. But obviously WTC7 did not turn to dust - so her statement is a serious lie and enough to invalidate her as a scientist.

As if this were not enough, at 12:15 she gives this explanation of why thermite or nanothermite was found in the WTC dust: Paraphrasing "The steel turned to dust, and became rust by the time it hit the ground. Also, the aluminum cladding turned to dust. So you have iron oxide and aluminum powder. This is where the thermite came from." !!!

To propose that an obviously highly-engineered red-gray chip could suddenly appear out of such a random process is more than absurd.
/Quote

See people! This is what happens. Why can't we just admit the obvious, our public leadership is totally compromised and probably working against us. We have to take the power back from them. To win we just have to make collapse videos go viral, we should not link to material from these dubious sources. I see this all clearly, please some of you hear me and take my advice, do it for the victims and the world. And steven, what is this crap about earthquake inducing technology, id say you are skating on thin ice

This pronouncement by JV certainly didn't come as a surprise, but it doesn't make it sting any less. I am just as disappointed in AJ for not calling him out on such nonsense and then trying to inject mini nukes! He can't seriously believe that stuff. And after all of AJ's hype with Dr Steve Pieczenik about bin Laden being dead for 10 years AJ carries on like JV know what he is talking about.

JV has always been on the fringe of the movement. He has never offered a clear concise presentation of the facts in any of his mainstream interviews, shows, or appearances. He peddles a lot of half-baked opinions and few supported facts. For someone who is supposedly so "smart" he rarely talks like it. I don't know anything about his navy seal history other that he won't talk about it. My instincts tell me he is an operative of the worst kind, the kind that find places in Dante's 9th circle of hell. Of course I have only my suspicions and may be best keeping them to myself, but after this stunt by JV, I had to put up my 2 cents worth. I was just beginning to think JV was coming around after his 63 docs book but the only asset he has become now is a CIA one whether consciously or unconsciously is still to be determined.

As for AJ, He should be taking each of JV's books off the shelf but I doubt he will do it. I do see that AJ did not post this interview with Jesse on his main page at infowars like he usually does but that means nothing. I can't trust AJ either with guests like Lord Monkton (sp?) on all time either. Sometimes he sounds credible and knowledgeable, other times he just angry and connecting things that make no sense like his recent rant on the royals. Its this type of show that keeps the truth from coming out.

Thanks Satyavira for posting this you saved me time cus i came here specifically to write about this, wtf. I heard that interview on Coast to Coast and thought at the time, "oh crap hope he doesn't take that disinfo bate". Such a shame, I just hope Alex managed to let him know off air cus pretty sure he knows the disinfo of Fetzer, Reynolds and Judy Wood. Only plus side to this is that Richard C. Hoagland has either exposed himself as a disinfo pusher, moron or both lol. Just hope that Jesse can learn from this one, really don’t want to see a “Conspiracy Theory” episode with Judy “forks go in microwaves” Wood thanks.

We all wondered why Ventura was getting so much mainstream media attention. He was filling in for Larry King, showing up on The View when other celebrities were banned for saying the same sorts of things on the same show.

I wrote to Jesse on his blog a months or so ago. Since I wrote the "insider trading" article in the book he made so much money off (and I didn't even get a copy) I wondered if he could help me understand something.

That is, Cathal Flynn was commander of UDT-12 about the same time Jesse Ventura was there. Flynn was Canavan’s predecessor at the FAA. Both Flynn and Cnavan were the hijack coordinators. Flynn, Canavan and Ventura were all special ops (apparently). What's up with that?

It's good that Gregg R et al did get the AE911 debunking up just recently. Worth posting around wherever you see people promoting DEW and in response to emails or debates. He's got most of the links debunking her claims in there.

"We do not support the DEW (directed energy weapon) hypothesis because it is not supported by the available evidence. In contrast, the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis for the WTC destruction is well supported by the evidence. . . . Based on what we know today, it is our opinion that the destruction scenario that best addresses the evidence is some type of explosive demolition using some combination of thermitic incendiaries and explosives that were placed inside the structures."

...then that's pretty disturbing and unsettling. Not only the link to JV, but the very fact a man who led an "Underwater Demolition Team" functionally related to the Navy Seals, i.e. special ops... becomes hijack coordinator for the FAA. You could say that's because they're point men for the job because of their expertise, but at the same time you have a possible mole installed. How far back did this tradition go, anyway? Did you mention this in your latest article? (I did read it)

Jesse V. is also a big tenter... but after his recent book I thought he was going the other way. I guess I was wrong.

My name and location are on my profile, and have always been...I did not expect this emotional reaction; is this really that important?

Do you expect me to believe in the feasibility of a device which violates one or more laws of thermodynamics? Are you on the verge of suggesting I might have malevolent intentions because I do not believe in machines which violate the laws of physics?

I expected much in 2011, but not this.. Please excuse me, while I disappear.

may tap into a previously unknown energy source. I certainly did not and do not say that the machine violates the laws of physics! What nonsense.

The issue, as I have posted on an energy-related forum, is between "we now know all sources of energy; nothing new is possible" versus "experiments can point to a novel energy source; experiments will decide."

The perpetual motion machine is science fiction, and so is the ridiculous notion that earthquake inducing technology might be used by "those who seek to control us". I thought you were a legit researcher, but I guess we are still waiting. I too withdraw all support for you and your research, and encourage others to do so as well. Here's a challenge for the truth movement, can we find professionals willing to help us who will not at some point appear at an event like conspiracy con, or talk about fake phone calls, or speculate about the NWO? It shouldn't be that hard. If nothing else let's learn from this, these people are not the leaders of this movement we are, all of us. We are the ones we have been waiting for, let's do this ourselves and not risk a bad association.

because Prof. Jones on his spare time is researching things you might find questionable, that means all his work on 9/11 is suddenly bunk?

The official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is endorsed by our government as legitimate science, perfectly in line with physics. The question here is, do you think it is? And if you don't, then why do you believe anything you've heard from government apologists and mainstream physicists about alternative energy?

What I mean is that I'm not going to live like a survivalist. This is another topic of interest for our dear doctor, who I think is sincere. I don't care to hear about how I can survive. Nothing personal.

This does not mean "hoarding", it means planning to get through difficult times as we work to create a new economy and new sustainable communities.

Having adequate food and water around in case of a prolonged emergency is just a good idea, especially if you live in areas subject to earthquakes (as I do), floods, hurricanes or other extreme natural phenomenon.

Then there are the man-made catastrophes to consider ...

That said, it is your choice whether to be prepared or not, and this is not a matter of religion, but of common sense for those interested in living.

Thanks man. I believe that if we stick together we can do anything. Let it be known, we can't be spooked, we are like whack a mole, try to stop one of us and another will pop up to replace her! Or, if you like we are like the head of Medusa, cut off one of the snakes and many more will emerge in it's place.

I skimmed the comments and didn't see the quote below. Even if it's already been offered in this thread, it never gets old.

Jim Fetzer: “I must say I think we’re finding out Judy, what happened on 9/11. I’m just blown away by your work. This is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11 … I’m going to make a wild guess Judy; I’m going to presume that these [directed energy] beams had to be located in Building 7?”

we should remember the young folks on thew split of the scholars. What was the quote, 93 to 6 or so, from 100 persons, who switched to Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice after they found out their old group had been hijacked and the possibilty of regaining control was low...

and I still don't understand what exactly the author is trying to prove. That the nanothermite paper co-authored by Dr. Steven Jones IS or IS NOT legitimate? That nanothermite WAS or WAS NOT discovered in the WTC dust?

Vulich, you show the same reactionist behaviour, you are willing to lend even this guy who is totally discredited in the movement (because of the things he said) an ear, just because you want to and it fits to your agenda. Sigh...

And no, I am not going lenghts through the points to clarify this, I will not do any longer with the "debunkers", I will not with the reactionist. You are time stealers. All points were adressed over and over and over. Sorry that this itself sounds like the common "debunker" method, "It's all rejected" (with no proof). Here I did it myself and I know. With proof. If you would be able to read german language you would have the chance to know by reading my works and blog.

is undebunkable and Willy Loman is a fraud from WTCD. I forgive Vulich for citing him. After all, WTCD attacked Vulich and me, both smearing us as 'Sunstein infiltrators'. Why? Because we're not garden variety truthers who swallow all the conspiracy bait hook, line and sinker. I'm surprised Jimd3100 has managed to escape the harshest treatment from these guys, but CIT have more than made up for that with their stalking.

The issue is, can I trust the primary author (in spirit) of the nanothermite paper to not discredit himself completely in 2011 with claims reflexively rejected as utter nonsense by the entire scientific community? (And for good reason)

Because the actual content of the paper will soon become irrelevant if this continues in this fashion.

I don't know the history of Willy Loman on blogger. Does anyone care to enlighten me? Sorry for that, it's just my ignorance if there is a problem. Additionally I would say that while the nanothermite paper may not have been debunked I hesitate to use a strong term like undebunkable (might come back to haunt us, that's just part of the concern you have to have when you are dealing with a discredited source). It's always best to hedge your bets, but this causes me no anxiety as CD is provable on the basis of the observed collapse time alone. Discussion of the materials strikes me as a strategic mistake now, considering who we have to reference in order to motivate that evidence.

It's just... Willy is heavily obsessed with debunking Steven Jones at all cost, while there are many other researchers in this movement.. and official reports. He's a WTCD frequenter, and that site is truly something else in terms of disruptive, paranoid lies. You've noticed, because you were snitchjacketed with me... by son of a Foreign Service Officer who served in Latin America during some of the CIA's worst transgressions there.

Kevin Ryan and Frank Legge have done nothing but impress me, even though nobody is perfect. I hope Steven Jones comes back to the rational side, because if not, this movement is going to suffer an absolutely gigantic credibility hit in 2011. I am not going to pursue an agenda of attacking prof. Jones (none of this makes me happy, I promise you), first I'm going to have to work through the disappointment over what happened recently. I'm also conflicted between the need for a credible movement and the personal liberty for prof. Jones to do and say as he pleases. Eventually without my support, though.

"listening to Jesse Ventura lose the last of his mainstream 9/11 credibility"

it was gone long before, but if there was any doubt, it's beyond totally gone now. In his conspiracy TV show, Ventura covered a variety of claims for which there's no good evidence and which degraded his credibility, not the least of which were the '757 didn't hit the Pentagon' and fake calls claims, and now he's gone space beams. It would be nice to know the reason he's doing this, i.e. does he know it's BS or does he really believe it.

Whatever his motivation, the fact is, he's done it, and one thing is certainly clear; with this move he's destroyed his credibility so completely that even those here who defended his promotion of other BS claims aren't defending this latest BS move; they aren't saying 'maybe we were wrong about space beams; after all, if Jesse thinks it's cool...'. Instead, they're saying perhaps he can be persuaded otherwise, and/or that they hope he doesn't cover BS in the future. As if it still isn't clear that Ventura is not a truth leader, that he's as toxic as Fetzer, who, btw, was an associate/friend of his from when he was Minn. gov.

Ventura's high public profile just serves to amplify and reinforce for the general public that the 9/11 truth movement is a bunch of conspiracy buffs, not truth seekers, and even for those that know that isn't the case, this kind of thing serves to intimidate; question 9/11, get lumped w/ the nut jobs.

Since then I was very careful of Ventura, and right on. Thankfully I'm not the only one...
We have no leaders. The facts do speak for themselves. The real facts. Not the garbage somebody is throwing between our legs.

really though, to the serious researchers out there, this is just more proof that there is some serious substance to evidence of nano-thermite.

I mean, dust samples from several independent sources examined by a number of qualified chemists and metalogists , all reaching the same conclusion...

vs judy wood.. who doesn't actually have anything other than a hunch (and there's also the fact she appears to have pretty serious mental problems).

I'm seeing more videos appearing recently attacking steven jones and richard gage (based on very weak arguments) and attempting to lead to the viewer onto the beam weapon stuff.

I don't like division in the 'movement' but really, the beam weapon thing is being used to muddy this whole area of investigation. Any talk of beam weapons/microwaves needs to be ignored (unless someone can come up with some convincing evidence).

Good afternoon. As members of the jury it is your task to separate fact from fiction. Dr.Judy Wood's entire argument about the use of an exotic weapon on 9/11 rests upon the Towers' steel being dustified. She conveniently ignores the real numbers.

"The Port Authority estimates more than 200,000 tons of steel was used in the World Trade Center's construction. Of that total, more than 168,000 tons has been salvaged from Ground Zero thus far, according to the New York City Office of Emergency Management.

"Three companies – Metal Management Northeast of Newark, N.J., Hugo Neu Schnitzer East of Jersey City and Blandford Land Development Corporation of Brooklyn, N.Y. – have successfully bid for city contracts to recycle the steel, and continue to bid on what remains to be salvaged."